LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



. 



014 441 019 1« 



k 



F 21Q 
.R995 
Copy 1 



ADDRESS 

Delivered by 

Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford 
HISTORIAN GEiNERAL 

United Daughters of the 
Confederacy 



Wrongs of History Righted 



SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 

Friday, Nov. 13, 1914 



UEFEREXCES: •'Rcj^r 



I. Causes that led to the War between the States. 

The United States Constitution. 

The South: Constitution and Resulting Union — Dr. J. L. M. 

Curry. 
George Bancroft's United States History. 
Life of Stonewall Jackson — Henderson. 
The South in the Building of the Nation, lo Vols. 
The Abolition Crusade — Hilary Herbert. 

II. The Institution of Slavery in the South. 

The Old South — Thomas Nelson Page. 

Religion and Slavery — Rev. James H. McNeilly. 

The Old Virginia Gentleman — Bagby. 

History of the United States — Percy Greg. 

The Old South and the New — Charles Morris. 

Story of the Confederate States — Derry. 

Civil History of the Confederate Government — Curry. 

III. Jefferson Uavis vs. .\brahani Lincoln. 
Davis: 

ivlemoirs of Judge Reagan. 

Higher History of the United States — H. E. Chambers. 
The History of the Confederate States Navy — Scharff. 
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government — Jefferson 
Davis. 
LiQCoIn: 

The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Herndon. 1st ed. 
The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Herndon & Weik. 
The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Lamon. 
The Life of Abraham Lincoln — Nicolay & Hay. 

IV. Political Differences. 

Alexander Stephens in Public and Private with Letters and 

Speeches — Cleveland. 
Morse's Lincoln. 
Congressional Records. • ' '. ; 
War of the Rebellion. ■,."* 
Barnes' Popular History of the United States. 
The Confederate Veteran. 

V. Barbara Frietchie^Myth. 

Letters from Whittier and testimony of others who lived at 
that time. 

VI. Andersonville Prison and Trial of Major Wirz. 

War of the Rebellion — Congressional Records. 

Life of Benjamin H. Hill — B. H. Hill, Jr. 

The Southern View of Andersonville — Dr. R. R. Stevenson. 

Andersonville Prison from a Prisoner's Standpoint — James 

M. Page. 
Autograph Letters from Andersonville Prisoners. 
Letters from General Grant to General Butler, City Point, 

August 18, 1864. 
Address to U. C. V. by Dr. Kerr, Corsicana, Texas. 

VII. Cruelties in Northern Prisons. 

Constitutional View of the War between the States — Alex- 
ander H. Stephens. 
The Official Acts of the Confederate States. 
Letters from Allexander Stephens. 

Ulysses S. Grant. 

Jefferson Davis. 

Robert Ould. 

John E. Mulford. 

Ben. Butler. 
Articles in "National Intelligencer," Washington, D. C. 

Antbor 



WRONGS OF HISTORY RIGHTED. 



]\Iy objt'ct this evening is not to stress the omissions of history, 
but rather to urge that some of the wrongs that have already 
entered history be righted. 

We of the South liave borne too long and too patiently the 
many misrepresentations eoneerning us, and we cannot afford 
to be patient longer. There is a hope that some of the omis- 
sions may enter future history, but what hope can there he 
of these misrepresentations ever being righted if we neglect 
to do it now? They have eondennied us; they are condenuiing 
US; and they will continue to condemn us, if we longer remain 
indifferent. Let us remember what Dr. Curry said, "If history 
as now written is accepted it will consign the South to infamy." 

When sons and daughters of Veterans Avrite articles for news- 
papers and magazines, condemning the principles for which 
their Confederate fathers fought, and even stand for a changed 
Constitution that will overthrow the very bulwark of the South 
— state sovereignty — it is full time for the Daughters of the 
Confederacy and Veterans to become insistent that the- truths 
of history shall be written, and that those truths shall be correctly 
taught in our schools and colleges. 

So long as we send our Southern boys to Harvard to be taught 
"The Essentials of American History" by Dr. Albert Bushnell 
Hart, so long may we expect them to question the principles 
for which their fathers fought. Now understand, I do not object 
to Dr. Hart, who is a scholar of renown, teaching the Hamilton- 
ian theory of the Constitution to his Northern boys, for that is 
as they should be taught, but our Southern boys should be sent 
to Southern universities to be taught the Jeffersonian theory of 
the Constitution. And so long as we have teachei-s in our edu- 
cational institutions who have been taught by Dr. Hart, or by 
teachers who believe as Dr. Hart teaches, so long may we expect 
our sons and our daughters to be untrue to the South and the 
things for which the South stands. 

The responsibility is yours, mothers and fathers, to know the 
training your children are receiving; to know by whom taught, 
whether true or false to all we hold dear. Only in this way can 
we stem the tide of falsehoods that have crept in, and are still 
creeping into the newspapers in our homes, into the books in 



our libraries, and into the text-books that we are allowing to 
be used in our schools. 

I understand that in one of our leading universities of the 
South during the past year two of the professors stated in their 
classrooms that the South had never produced a great man. 
Think of it! A section which gave the author of the Bill of 
Rights, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the author 
of the United States Constitution, the author of the Monroe Doc- 
trine; a section that gave the commander of the forces of the 
Revolution, the leadei-s both on land and on sea of the "War of 
1812, both leaders of the War with Mexico, the leaders North 
and South in the War between the States, and the men mast 
prominent in the Spanish-American War; a section that gave 
the first President of the United States, indeed gave twelve 
Presidents to the United States, as well as the President of the 
Confederate States; a section that gave a Robert E. Lee, and a 
Stonewall Jackson ; a section that gave an Edgar Allan Poe and 
a Sidney Lanier; a section that gave a Matthew Maury and a 
Crawford W. Long — yes. a section that gave Woodrow Wilson, 
the man of the hour and the man of the age, said to have never 
produced a great man ! 

Where could these men have been educated but in some anti- 
South atmsophere ! Shall such men as these be allowed to teacli 
the youth of the South true history? 

My object to-night is to urge you. Daughtei-s of the Confed- 
eracy, to aid in having these wrongs of history righted, and 
when I urge you to do this, I urge you to do it without bitter- 
ness or prejudice or narrowness. As we demand truth and 
.lustice, that we must give. Let us be careful to rule out of our 
Southern textbooks anything that is unjust to the North, and 
justice compels me to say that wrongs to the North have at 
times entered into some of our books by Southern writers. Then, 
too, let us in our search for truth be ever ready to give authority 
lor every statement Ave make, and require the same of others. 

While there are many misrepresentations concerning us in 
the history Avhich antedates the sixties, yet in my limited time 
to-night I nuist confine these misrepresentations to the period 
wliich pertains to the War between the States. And, Daughters, 
I mean the War between the States. 

Ours was not a Civil War, so let us correct that wrong first. 
The United States was a Republic of Sovereign States. We were 
not a Nation until the surrender left it impossible for a state 

4 



to secede. A civil war must be in one state between two parties 
in that state. If we acknowledge that onrs was a Civil War, 
we acknowledge we were a Nation, or one State in 1861 and not 
a Republic of Sovereign States, and therefore nad no right to 
secede. This is what the North would like us to acknowledge. 

It Avas not a War of Secession as some would have us to 
call it. The Southern States seceded with no thought of war. 
They simply wished to have a government where their rights, 
reserved by the Constitution, should be respected. The war was 
caused by the North attempting to coerce us back into the Union, 
contrary to the Constitution, and for no reason save that the 
states of the South demanded their rights. If we call it a War 
of Secession we admit the seceding states brought on the war. 

It Avas not a War of Rebellion, for sovereign states cannot 
rebel, therefore secession was not rebellion. This is acknowledged 
now by all thinking men. 

It was not a War op Sections. The North did not fight the 
South, for brothers were arrayed against brothers in many cases. 
There were many men of the South Avho enlisted on the Union 
side. There were many men of the North who enlisted on the 
Southern side. Both North and South were contending for a 
principle and not because they hated each other. 

It was the War between the States, for the non-seceding 
States of the United States made war upon the seceding States 
of the United States to force them back into the Union. Please 
call it so, and teach it so. 

I. 

A Avrong to be righted must be the Causes that led to the 
War between the States, for injustice is too often done us by 
ascribing wrong motives to our secession. 

These causes far antedate the firing on Fort Sumter, so un- 
fairly said to have begun the war. To really get at the root 
of the matter, we must go back to that Constitutional Convention 
in 1787, after the Treaty of Paris had left the Colonies free, 
sovereign and independent States. 

Two political parties were formed at this Convention — the 
Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, standing for 
a centralized government, were led by Alexander Hamilton, 
claiming that all states owed allegiance to the Federal govern- 
ment as the absolute head of the Nation. Now it was perfectly 
natural for Alexander Hamilton to take this view of the Con- 



stitution and think we were a Nation, for he was foreign born — 
a native of the West Indies, His father and mother before him 
had served a king, and while he had been sent at an early age 
to America to be educated, yet this love for and belief in mon- 
archy was an inheritance. 

The Anti-Federalists, later called Republicans, but far differ- 
ent from the anti-South party of the same name today, organ- 
ized in 1854, were led by Thomas Jefferson, standing for local 
self-government, and the right of a)iy state to witlidraw from 
the Union of States, when a right reserved to it ])y the Consti- 
tution was interfered with. It was perfectly natural for Thomas 
Jefferson to have this \iiew of the Constitution. The plantation 
life in the old South made every planter a laM' to himself, and 
it was this that has made Southern men ever so tenacious of 
their State rights. You may saj'', Thomas Jefferson was in Paris 
in 1787 and not at that Constitutional Convention. That ;s 
true, but he had well instructed ^Madison. Henry. Randolph and 
Pinckney concerning the points to be stressed before any new 
document was signed by Southern States. The Constitution 
was not fully adopted, you must remember, until after Jeffer- 
son's return. 

Climate and heredity made the two sections different from 
the very first — the Northern colonies standing for trade, man- 
ufactures, and commerce; the Southern colonies standing for 
agricultural pursuits and export — but so long as a balance of 
power was maintained, when voting time came, all went well. 

The question of slavery did not enter into the platform of 
the two parties at all, for all states owned slaves, the right given 
by the Constitution, and they saw no harm in slavery. It is 
true the slave trade was a source of deep concern on the part 
of the majority of the states, and the Southern States seemed 
really more concerned about this than the Northern. Georgia 
was the first state to legislate against the .slave trade; the Caro- 
linas legislated against it as early as 1760; Virginia, in 1778, 
and in all "the old mother state" legislated against it 32 times. 
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of tlie Declaration of Inde- 
pendence had a protest against the slave trade, and John Adams 
of Massachusetts, advised that it be stricken out. ^Massachusetts 
was the finst state to legislate in favor of the slave trade. New 
Jersey was the last state to legislate against it, and New York 
never did legislate against it, so really Massachusetts and New 



York were carrying on the slave trade in violation of the United 
States law as late as 1860. 

At a glance one may see how unjust have been the accusations 
concerning the South in regard to the question of slavery. The 

^^rouble really between the two political parties was caused by a 
different interpretation of the Constitution as to what rights 
were reserved to the States, and whether the Union of States 
was a Nation or a Republic. 

y The invention of the cotton gin undoubtedly led to the war. 
On account of a cold climate, unfavorable to the negro's physical 
make-up, as well as because manufacturing interests were im- 
suited to negro labor, the Northern States sold their slaves, in 
large part to the Southern planters. This gave free labor in 
the South, and hired labor in the North. Great prosperity came 
to the South when cotton could be so easily raised and ginned, 
and there threatened to be an over-balance of voting power by 
the slave States. Sectional jealousies Avere engendered and con- 
tentions then began. 

^ In 1803 when a Southern President and a slaveholder, Thomas 
Jefferson, secured the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, that 
large extent of acres, more than double the area of the other 
States at that time, ]\Iassachusetts was filled with alarm and 
threatened to secede and form a Northern Confederacy, and 
Josiah Quincy advised it on sectional grounds. When Jefferson 
assured them that he was not a President of a section but the 
President of the whole country, and that he would not violate 
the Constitution by giving one section an advantage over nn- 
other, Massachusetts' fears were quieted. 

When in 1811 trouble arose about the United States Bank, 
the legislature of Pennsylvania agitated nullification as justi- 
fiable by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Why later 
was Calhoun villified for his nullification views? Again, there 
was trouble in 1812 when the New England States threatened 
to form a Northern Confederacy if war Avith England was 
declared. The South said there would never ^e freedom fron-. 
England on sea unless war Avas declared, and only the great 
victory at New Orleans prcA'ented the Avithdrawal of tlie Xew 
England States at that time. 

/ Then in 1820 when Missouri asked to come in as a slave State, 

' and because ]\Iissouri was cut out of the Louisiar.a Territory, 
Massachusetts feared too much power to slave Stales and again 
threatened to withdraw. Thomas, of Illinois, otTci-od a com- 



promise measure to forbid any State above SS^ i^O" latitude 
holding slaves. This bill was finally amended to except ^lis- 
souri. In Northern histories, and Southern histories have fol- 
lowed their lead, it has been over and over again stated, and I 
have myself often made the same mistake, that Henry Clay was 
responsible for this amendment. It worried me greatly, for it 
was a direct violation of the U. S. Constitution, and a flagrant 
interference of States' rights. I hated to think a Southern man 
was responsible for it. You may imagine my delight when 
upon reading the "Life of Henry Clay" I found that he denied 
liaving anything to do with it. He was the Speaker of the 
Ilou-se at the time and took no part in the debates on the floor. 
Eminent statesmen of the South felt the injustice of this com- 
promise and did not hesitate to say so. John C. Calhoun nover 
was reconciled to it. But it was finally accepted, just Zar the 
sake of peace. 

In 1828 and again in 1832 and 1833 Tariff Acts were passed 
which were unjust to the South and a direct violation of the 
Constitution, because they favored one section over another. 
These Acts were such an interference with our States' rights 
that Callioun stood for nullifying them — hence he was called 
"The Xullifier. " I have never been able to understand why 
Calhoun .should have been so villified when he proposed a South- 
ern Confederacy at this time and nothing was said when Massa- 
chusetts and the New England States proposed a Northern 
Confederacy. 

John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, was one of the real 
prophets of the age, for everything he Avarned us against has 
actually come true, and had we heeded him many valuable 
lives might have been saved. The "child of .secession" was really 
bom in that contest between Robert Y. Ilayne of South Carolina 
and Daniel Webster of ]Massachusetts, over the Foot ResolutioHS. 

The unequal disbui-sement of the funds in the U. S. Treasury 
was also felt to be unjust to the South. The South was paying 
into the treasury two-thirds of all tlie money there; yet the 
veterans of the Revolutionary "War were paid three times the 
amount in pensions in the North that they were in the South; 
the appropriations for roads, harbors, and rivers amounted to 
five times as much for the Nortli as the South and the money 
expended for internal improvements ten times as much ; twenty- 
three lighthouses were in the North to ten in the South, and 
eighteen custom houses in the North to one in the South. The 



sea coast of the South was 3,000 miles in extent, and that of 
the North only 900 miles, yet five harbors were in the North to 
one in the South. Under these circumstances what could the 
South expect in just legislation? 

In 1845 when Texas asked to come into the Union as a slave 
State, Massachusetts said then she must withdraw, for that 
would give too much slave territory. When war was declared 
with Mexico the North had few men comparatively to volunteer 
and when the cause was won by Southern arms the North, by 
legislation, tried to manage it so that the South should have no 
part of the acquired territory as slave territory. In 1847 the 
Wilmot Proviso was proposed, but fortunately did not become 
a law, but it showed the tendency of the Northern mind. In 
1849 gold was discovered in California and the North Avanted 
it to be a free State. By the iNIissouri Compromise it should 
have been half slave territory as half of the State was below 
the degree of latitude prescribed by the Compromise. Trouble 
was brewing when ' ' The Peacemaker, ' ' Henry Clay, proposed his 
Omnibus Bill in 1850. This included the "Five Bleeding 
Wounds, ' ' namely : 

Let California come in as a free State. 

Let Utah and New Mexico come in free or slave as they desire. 

Let the slave trade be excluded from the District of Columbia. 

Let Texas be paid for the territory claimed by New Mexico. 

Let the Fugitive Slave Law be enforced. 

Now this virtually repealed the ]\Iissouri Compromise, but 
still it was violating States' rights. However, it was passed in 
the interest of peace. 

While the South knew that some of these measures were un- 
just, yet to get back her slaves, for at this time 30,000 had beei? 
hidden from their owners, she was willing to adopt the compro- 
mise measures that grew out of this bill. i\Iany Southern states- 
men protested against it, and it only postponed the war ten 
years. 
^^ In 1852 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" appeared. This was such a 
misrepresentation of the institution of slavery in the South that 
it brought just indignation to Southern people. It was so subtly 
Avritten that it made the abolition sentiment stronger at the 
North, and really had much to do in bringing on the war, and 
much to do in keeping England, France and other European 
countries from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. The 
South felt this injustice keenly. 



Then in 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Bill proposed by Stephen 
Douglas passed. This led to Squatter Sovereignty, another vio- 
lation of the Constitution and an interference with our States' 
rights. There is no doubt that John Brown's Raid grew out of 
this bill. The first gun fired in this raid may be said to have 
been the first gim of the War between the States. 

John Brown was "an insurrectionist, an invader of States, an 
encourager of arson, and a murderer" — and this is quoting 
entirely from Nortliern authority. I could never understand 
how God-fearing men from the pulpits in the North have said 
that next to the Son of God John Brown was the greatest of 
martyrs. It has taken all the grace of Christianity for the South 
to forgive and forget this. However, the Federal Government 
quickly punished this offender, and also decided in favor of the 
South when the Dred Scott case came to trial. So we began to 
take hope that at last the South could fall back upon her reserved 
rights and be protected. 

Another offense then came. The slave trade was being openly 
violated and no action was taken by the Federal Government 
to prevent it. It had been decided hy law that the slave trade 
should cease in 1808. and yet as late as 1857 it was known that 
75 slave ships had sailed from ^Massachusetts ports, and between 
1859 and '60, it was known that 85 slave ships left New York, 
sent out by merchants carrying 60.000 slaves to Brazil. As late 
as 1857 the Chlotilde was sent to ^lobile, Ala., with 175 slaves, 
and the foUow^ing year the New York Yacht Club sent the 
Wanderer to Brunswick, Ga., with 750 slaves, and the next year 
it returned with 600 slaves and sailed up the Satilla and Savan- 
nah rivers and sold this cargo in violation of the law. An 
attempt was made by Georgia to prosecute two Georgians who 
Avere accused of encouraging the transaction, but they could not 
^e convicted for complicity in the scheme. If the Federal Gov- 
ernment ever punished Massachusetts and New York for violat- 
ing the law it is not so recorded. 

But the act which brought things to a crisis was the election 
of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, without 
even a popidar vote of the North, but by the vote of the fifteen 
States which had stood for these repeated violations of the Con- 
stitution and continued interferences with States' rights, and 
the States which took out the "Personal Liberty Bills," advo- 
cating a law higher than the Constitution so that they might 
still hide our slaves. ]\v this time (I860), 50,000 slaves had 

10 



been hidden from ils. Unfortunately, the Democratic party split, 
having three candidates in the field — a warning that Ave must 
hereafter heed — and allowed Lincoln to be elected on the small 
vote of 1,831.000. There was nothing for the South to do but 
to secede. She saw nothing but continued violation of the Con- 
stitution by the Nortli dominated by the policy wf these fifteen 
States and their candidate. How could she be blamed for 
seceding ? 
V Did the Southern States secede with any thought of war ? 
No, they simply wished to peacefully withdraw and form a 
government which would respect their rights as reserved by. the 
Constitution. It would have been a stupid thing for seven States 
to think of fighting all of the other States in the Union. The 
North had the army; the North had the navy; the North had 
all of the arms. The South had no arms except the small num- 
ber of guns that Secretary Floyd had asked for, fearing another 
John Brown might arise, and those Jefferson Davis, when Secre- 
tary of War, had asked for to quell the Indian uprisings. Even 
then the full quota of arms which rightly belonged to the South 
had never been asked for. 

Does it not seem in reason, if the South had had a thought of 
war at this time she would have demanded her full share of 
arms and ships? The South had no materials to manufacture 
munitions of war. That is, she did not know that she had sul- 
phur, saltpetre, nitre and other ueedflil things lying undis- 
covered beneath her soil, but she knows it now ; she then had few 
manufactories; she only had one Powder Mill, that at Augusta, 
Ga. ; she did not own a ship, yet her Southern men in command 
of ships (there were 43 captains and 62 commanders in all from 
the South), when the States seceded, surrendered their commis- 
sions to the U. S. Government and came home to cast their lot 
with their States. Had they dreamed of war, they could have 
brought their ships south as they had a right to do. She did not 
have a ship yard where a ship could even be repaired. She had 
only 9,000,000 people from which to draw an army, and 4,000,000 
of these were her slaves, while the North had over 31,000,000 
and the whole world from which to draw recruits. Think of 
war? No, she never dreamed of it. Some few of her statesmen 
feared it, but when suggested, Robert Toombs of Georgia, said 
he would willingly drink every drop of blood which would be 
shed by war. 

The South only desired to take possession of the things which 

11 



were rightfully hers. Texas demanded her forts and arsenal; 
so did Louisiana her custom house and fort ; Mississippi, Ala- 
bama, Florida and Georgia their forts and arsenals; but when 
South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter, to the surprise of South 
Carolina, it was refused. Governor Pickens at once sent a re- 
quest to President Buchanan to allow the fort to be surrendered 
peaceably. Assurances were given that this would be, and yet 
The Star of the West was sent with 200 men and arms to hold 
the fort. The first thing that the Confederate government did 
was to send a committee of three to Washington to ask the peace- 
able surrender of Fort Sumter. They waited there three months 
imtil President Lincoln had been inaugurated and then made 
the request. He refused to see the committee, but through 
Seward, and Seward through Judge Campbell, sent to them 
assurances that "faith with Fort Sumter would be kept." Now 
Lincoln and Seward both knew that when this message was sent, 
seven vessels filled with armed men had already sailed to gar- 
rison the fort. When time sufficient had elapsed for the vessels 
to land, then Lincoln wired Gov. Pickens that he had sent these 
men to Sumter peacefully if allowed to land, otherwise re- 
sistance would be made. Fortunately a storm prevented the 
vessels reaching the fort as soon as had been expected, so General 
Beauregard telegraphed for permission to demand the surrender 
of the fort. This permission was granted by the Confederate 
government. Anderson said he must wait for orders from head- 
quarters. Beauregard answered that if the fort was not sur- 
rendered by a certain time it would be fired upon. It was not 
surrendered, so was fired upon. The firing of the first shot at 
Fort Sumter did not bring on the war, but the act which made 
the firing necessary declared war. The call of President Lincoln 
foa* 75.000 troops to coerce the South, without Congress' consent, 
was a violation of the Constitution. Virginia, North Carolina, 
Tennessee and Arkansas resented this and quickly seceded. Mis- 
souri, Kentucky and ^Maryland wi.shed to secede, but were not 
allowed to vote on secession. This act of Lincoln calling for 
troops was in itself a declaration of war. 
^Was secessiox rebeltjon? The very fact that President 
Davis and the leaders of the South could not be brought to trial 
disproves this. Chief Justice Chase said. "If j^ou bring these 
leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitu- 
tion secession is not rebellion." Wendell Phillips said, and he 
was no friend of the South, "Looking back upon the principles 

12 



cf 76 the South had a perfect right to secede." Horace Greely 
said so, Lincoln himself said so, and Daniel Webster had said so. 
I wonder how many here present realize that there have been 
eight distinct secessions in the United States and very many 
threatened ones. 

1. The thirteen colonies seceded from England and formed a 
Perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation in 1776. 

2. The thirteen States seceded from the Perpetual Union and 
formed a Eepublic of Sovereign States in 1787. . 

3. Texas seceded from Mexico and became a Republic in 1836. 

4. The Abolitionists, led by William Lloyd Garrison, seceded 
from the Constitution at Framingham, Mass., and publicly 
burned it, calling it a "league with hell and covenant with 
death," the assembled multitude loudly applauding. 

5. Eleven States seceded from the Union in 1861 and formed 
a Southern Confederacy. 

6. The North seceded from the Constitution in 1861 when 
she attempted to coerce the eleven States back into the Union. 

7. Under President JMcKinley in 1898 the United States 
forced Cuba to secede from Spain. 

8. Under Roosevelt in 1905 the United States forced Panama 
to secede from Colombia. 

Why should all of these secessions be justifiable save the one 
by the South in 1861? 

Was the war fought to hold our slaves? Ah I how often 
have we of the South had this cast into our teeth and often by 
some of our own Southern people. Yes, it is full time this wrong 
should be righted. 

Had the vote been taken in 1860 there would have been more 
votes against the abolition of slavery in the North than in the 
South. There Avere 318,000 slaveholders or sons of slaveholders 
in the Northern army, men who enlisted from the Border States, 
Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, ]\Iaryland, besides those from 
Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. There were 
only 200,000 slaveholders in the Southern army. Only five men 
out of every one hundred owned slaves in the South. 

There were many men among the leaders of the Northern 
army who owned slaves themselves or were sons of slaveholders 
or had married women who owned slaves. Among these may 
be mentioned General Winfield Scott, Commodore Farragut, 
Gleneral George H. Thomas, General Grant: President Lincoln's 
wife came from a slaveholding family, and Stephen Douglas's 

13 



Avife "vvas a very large slaveliolder. Avhile many of the leaders on 
the Sonthern side did not own slaves. General Lee had freed 
his. General Stonewall Jackson never had owned one until hus- 
band and wife begged him to buy them to prevent separation. 
General Albert Sidney Johnston never owned a slave, and Gen- 
eral William M. Browne, a member of President Davis's staff, 
never owned a slave. No. the war was not fought to hold slaves, 

i/Dut a few selfish Southern people may have thought so. 

// General Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish 
slaverj'', I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the 
other side." The North had no thought of fighting to abolish 
slaves, then why should the South be troubled on that score? 
President Lincoln sent word to General Butler that the war was 
not to be fought with any idea of freeing the slaves. President 
Lincoln was only concerned about the exten.sion of slavery in 
the new territory, and frankly confessed to Horace Greely that 
if the Tnion could bo preserved with slavery he would not inter- 
fere Avith it. It was the preservation of the l^nion he so ardently 
desired. He had no love for the negro in his heart. Don Piatt, 
who stumped the State of Illinois for him in his presidential 
campaign in 1860, said in one of his speeches that Lincoln had 
no love for the negro, "Descended from the poor whites of the 
South he hated the negro and the negro hated him. and he waf? 
no more concerned for that wretched race than he was concerned 
for the horse he worked or the hog he killed." 

II. 

"Was Slavery a crime and was the slaveholder a criminal? 
How little the people living today know of the institution of 
slavery as it existed in the South before the war. I long for 
the eloquence of our silver-tongued orator, Benjamin H. Hill, 
that I might paint the picture as I remember it. 

If the roll call were taken of the children in the South today 
they would in large numbers be found to be abolitionists, intense 
and fanatical, and in full .sympathy with the Northern side. 
Why? Because from childhood they have been taught by teach- 
ers who believe this, and have been fed on such children's books 
as "The Elsie Books," Louisa Alcott's stories, and kindred ones, 
l)esides being allowed to see moving picture shows of Uncle Tom's 
Cabin. Sheridan's Ride. Contest between Merrimac and Moni- 
tor, and the like. Whom can you blame for this, parents, but 
yourselves ? 

14 



Slavery was no disgrace to the owner or the owned. From 
time immemorial all civilized nations had been slaveholders. 
White, brown and black have been slaves. 

Who was responsible for slaverj' in the United States ? Spain 
and England. 

What colony first owned slaves? The Jamestown colony. 

Was there any colony or State of all the thirteen which did 
not own slaves? Not one. In 1776 there were 500,000 slaves 
in America and 300,000 were in the Northern colonies. 

What was the condition of the Africans when brought to this 
country? Savage to the last degree, climbing cocoanut trees 
to get food, without thought of clothes to cover their bodies, 
aind sometimes cannibals, and all bowing down to fetishes — 
sticks and stones — as acts of worship. 

What laws became necessary when they reached this country? 
Very rigid and in the light of the present day civilization ex- 
cessively cruel. A strong argument for the civilizing power of 
slavery would be to compare these colonial laws with the laws 
of 1860. 

How did the Cavaliers regard slavery? They were very thank- 
ful to have a part in such a wonderful missionary and educa- 
tional enterprise. 

How did the Puritans regard slavery? They thanked God 
for the opportunity of bringing these benighted souls to a knowl- 
edge of Jesus Christ. 

How did the Quakers regard the institution of slavery ? They 
were always opposed to the holding of any human being as prop- 
erty, although it is stated that William Penn did once own 
slaves. 

Does the Bible condemn slavery? 

It certainly does not. God gave to Abraham the most explicit 
directions what he should do with his slaves bought with his 
own money, and what he should do with the ones he owTied by 
right of capture. (Gen. 17.) Then our Lord healed the cen- 
turion's servant and said not a word about it being a sin to hold 
him in bondage. (]\Iatt. 8.) And Paul sent Onesimus, the rim- 
away slave, back to his master with apologies, but said nothing 
to Philemon about freeing him, but rather offered himself to 
pay his master for the time Onesimus had stolen from him. 
(Phil. 1, 18.) And Titus was the pastor of a slave church. Paul 
wrote to him to exhort those slaves to be obedient to their mas- 
ters, not to answer back again, and not to steal, but to adorn 

15 



the doctrine of God their Savior in all things. (Titus 2:9, 10.) 
See also Eph. 6:5, 6, 7, 8. 

Did the slaveholder in the Sonth take an interest in the re- 
ligious condition of the negro? 

He certainly did. More negroes were brought to a knowledge 
of God and their Savior under this institution of slavery in the 
South than under any other missionary enterprise in the same 
length of time. Keally more were Christianized in the 246 j'ears 
of slavery than in the more than thousand years before. 

In 1861 there Avere, by actual statistics, in the seceding States 
220,000 negro Baptists, 200,000 :\Iethodists, 31,000 Presbyte- 
rians, 7,000 Episcopalians, and 30,000 belonging to unclassified 
Christian churches. 

The negro race should give thanks daily that they and their 
children are not today where their ancestors were before they 
came into bondage. 

"Was the negro happy under the institution of slavery ? They 
were the happiest set of people on the face of the globe, — free 
from care or thought of food, clothes, home, or religious priv- 
ileges. 

The slaveholder felt a personal responsibility in caring for 
his slaves phj'sically, mentally', morally, and spiritually. By the 
way, we never called them slaves, they were our people, our 
negroes, part of our very homes. I do not remember a case of 
consumption, or I should say now tuberculosis, among the ne- 
groes in the South. I do not recall but one crazy negro in those 
days. Hospitals and asylums cannot now be built fast enough 
to accommodate them. 

I am not here to defend slavery. I would not have it back, 
if I could, but I do say I rejoice that my father was a slave- 
holder, and my grandfathers and great-grandfathei"s were slave- 
holders, and had a part in the greatest missionary and educa- 
tional endeavors that tlie world has ever known. There never 
have been such cooks, such nurses or mammies, such housemaids, 
such seamstresses, such spinners, such weavers, such washer- 
women. There never have been such carpenters, blacksmiths, 
butlers, drivers, field hands, such men of all work as could be 
found on the old plantations. Aunt Nanny's cabin Avas a veri- 
table kindergarten where the young negroes were trained to 
sew, to spin, to card, to weave, to wash and iron, and to nurse; 
Avhere the boys were taught to shell peas, to shuck corn, to 
churn, to chop wood, to pick up chips, to feed pigs, to feed 

16 



chickens, to hunt turkey, duck, guinea, goose and hen eggs and 
to make fires, and to sweep the yards. 

Did the negroes hate their ownere, and resent bondage? I 
need only to call to mind what happened when John Bro'WTi tried 
to make them rise and murder their masters and their masters' 
children. I need only call to mind what happened when their 
masters went to battle, leaving in absolute trust "Ole Mis" and 
the children to their protection. I need only call to mind what 
happened after they were free that made Thad Stevens' Exodus 
Order necessary in order to tear them from their old owners. 
I need only call to mind the many mammies who stayed to nurse 
"Ole Marster's" children to the third and fourth generation. 

Compare the race morally to what it was then. "Ole Marster" 
never allowed his negroes to have liquor unless he gave it to them. 
Crimes now so common were never known then. "While the 
negro under the present system of education may know more 
Latin and Greek, it does not better fit him for his life work. 
It is true the negro did not go to school under slavery, but he 
was allowed to be taught, if he so desired. I have in mind a 
young aunt who taught three negro women every night because 
they wanted to read their Bibles. I have in mind my mother 
on the plantation surroimded everj- Sunday afternoon teaching 
to the negro children the same verses of Scripture, the same 
Sunday School lesson, the same hymns that she taught her own 
children. 

As in family life a child must be punished if disobedient, 
so in plantation life a negro had to be punished if disobedient. 
Even admitting that some overseers were cruel, will the most 
exaggerated cases of cruelty compare with the burning of the 
witches at Salem or the awful conditions of the captured Afri- 
cans on the slave ships, or the fearful conditions in the sweat 
shops of Chicago and New York today? The slave was the 
property of the slaveholder and a selfish reason Avould have pro- 
tected him if there had been no higher motive. 

No, the slaveholder was no criminal and slavery under the 
old regime was no crime. In all the history of the world no 
peasantry was ever better cared for, more contented or happier. 

These wrongs must be righted and the Southern slaveholder 
defended as soon as possible. 



17 



III. 

Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lixcolx. 

Another wrong that must be righted is this glorification of 
Abraham Lincoln which redoimds to the villification of Jefferson 
Davis. Our children are having too much of it in their text- 
books, too much of it in the newspapers, too much of it from 
the pulpits. 

Had President Davis died in that cold, damp cell with man- 
acles upon him, and had President Lincoln lived, Davis would 
have been the saint and Lincoln the sinner. It is not fair or 
just because Lincoln was the martyr that attributes which he 
did not possess should be given to him and handed down as 
truthful history. 

I am perfectly willing to have President Lincoln receive the 
praise he justly deserves, for he was a remarkable man. and I 
would not detract one iota from what is his due. At the same 
time I am not willing to ascribe attributes to President Davis 
which he did not possess, for he was remarkable enough without 
them. Both men had their weaknesses and neither should be 
canonized. 

Lest I should be accused of partiality when their lives are 
placed in parallel lines, I shall only quote from the friends of 
each. Both had enemies, vindictive and prejudiced; both had 
friends, loyal and true. This contrast truthfully and faithfully 
drawn will throw much light upon unwritten histoiy. If in- 
justice to either has been done, it has not come from any desire 
or intention on the part of the hLstorian, for it is truth only 
that is sought. 

Jefferson Davis was born in Christian County, Kentucky, 
June 3rd, 1808. . 

Abraham Lincoln was born in Hardin County, Kentucky, 
February 12, 1809. 

There was a difference of eight months in their ages; they 
were born about 100 miles apart in the same State — both men 
Kentuckians of Southern birth. 

Jefferson Davis came from a home of culture, refinement, 
luxury, and religious influence. 

Abraham Lincoln came from a home of poverty, no refinement, 
no culture and little religious influence. 

Jefferson Davis had every educational advantage in youth. 
His first teacher was a loving, devoted Christian mother. He 

18 



was then sent to an academy, then to college, then to West Point. 
His ambition was to become a great military leader. 

Abraham Lincoln lost his mother when quite young. He at- 
tended school for a very short time. Thomas Lincoln's second 
wife was a very good woman and treated the lad kindly. He 
was sent from home at the age of nine, and then began the strug- 
gle for life. He did all kinds of hard work; he split rails, 
he worked on a ferry, he clerked in a store, and had no time 
for study except at night after a hard day's work. Often no 
light by which to study save the light from the fire. His ambi- 
tion made him struggle on to acquire an education under the 
most adverse circumstances. His desire was to become a great 
political leader, and if possible the President of the United 
States. 

Jefferson Davis in personal appearance was tall, erect, lean, 
with features very pronounced, and determination stamped on 
every lineament. He was always well groomed, perfectly at 
ease in his manners whether in the cabin of the lowly, the home 
of the wealth}', or the White House of the Confederacy. He 
always enjoyed social life.. 

Abraham Lincoln was tall, with stooping shoulders, thin and 
bony, with prominent features, but with determination written 
upon every lineament. He was never well dressed, his clothes 
having the appearance of being thrown at him. He was always 
ill at ease, whether in the cabin of the lowly, the home of the 
Avealthy, or the White House of the United States. He hated 
social life ; if possible, avoided it. 

Jefferson Davis had little humor in his nature, and resented 
a practical joke. Life was always very serious to him. He 
was dignity personified, and his soldierly bearing forbade even 
his most intimate friends getting very close to him. 

Abraham Lincoln loved jokes, indulged in them very fre- 
quently, and often his jokes were none too refined. His friends 
felt very near to him and enjoyed thoroughly his humor. 

Jefferson Davis was very happ}^ in his married life. His first 
wife was the daughter of President Zachary Taylor, his second 
wife was Miss Varina Howell, the daughter of a United States 
officer. His home was in ^Mississippi on a large plantation, sur- 
rounded by every comfort to make his life a joy. Children came 
into the home-nest, and his children were obedient, talented and 
loving. Sorrow later came from the loss of two of his boys, but 
he knew the source of comfort and did not rebel. 

19 



Abraham Lincoln 's married life was not happy. He had three 
romances connected with his early days. One, Amy Rutledge, 
belonged to his own social circle. Had he married her possibly 
his w^hole life would have been changed, but unfortunately she 
died while attending school. His other loves were Mary Owens 
and Mary Todd. He really loved neither, but in turn addressed 
each, became engaged to both, but advised both not to marr^- 
him, as he did not belong to their social set. It is said that 
Mar}' Owens jilted him, which greatly mortified him, but Mary 
Todd agreed to marry him. The day, January 1, 1842, was 
appointed, the bride and attendants were waiting at the church, 
but no bridegroom appeared. It is said that his most intimate 
friends were never able to account for Lincoln's behavior upon 
this occasion. I\Iary Todd forgave him, however, and married 
him one year later. It was a most unfortunate marriage, for 
she was not suited to make him happy, and while children came 
into the home, there was no real joy, for that can only come 
from a perfectly congenial atmosphere. He, too, lost one of his 
sons while living at Springfield, 111., and he became very morost; 
and melancholy, for Herndon and Lamon both said Lincoln had 
no Christian faith to sustain him. 

Jefferson Davis was a slaveholder, and his father before him 
o^^^led slaves. He was a kind master, and his negroes were 
devoted to him. Even after they were free, when their former 
master returned home from two years' confinement in prison, 
they climbed about his carriage, calling to him affectionately, 
"Howdy, Mars Jeff, howdy. "We sho is glad to see you." Then 
falling back and Aviping the tears from their eyes they were 
heard to say, "Lord, don't he look bad." 

The testimony of his body servant, who was with him when 
captured, if we did not have that of Judge Reagan and other 
of the cabinet members, would be sufficient to refute the awful 
falsehood of General Wilson's telegram, that he was disguised 
in a woman's dress Avhen arrested. This faithful servaut said, 
""When we heard the Yankees coming we was skeered to death, 
but old Bass he walked just as straight as if he Avas walking the 
streets of Richmond with Lee and Jackson. He was the bravest 
man I ever saw, I was sho the Yankees was going to hang him, 
but if he ever flinched nobody ever saw him. Folks may say 
what they please, but ]\Iars Jeff sho Avas brave. ' ' 

Abraham Lincoln belonged to the poor white class in the 
South, Avho hated the negroes and they hated them. He was no 

20 



y 



abolitionist, and this is from his own testimony. His wife came 
from a slave holding famih% but probably owned no slaves at 
the time of her marriage. 

Both men served in the Black Hawk War. Lieutenant Davis 
mustered into service Captain Abraham Lincoln of the militia. 
Neither distinguished himself in any way during this war. Davis 
later entered the Mexican "War and won great renown. At Mon- 
terey he was wounded, at Buena Vista he was a hero, and later 
led the troops into Mexico City with great bravery. In his mil- 
itary life he was known as a fine disciplinarian, and while his 
soldiers feared him and dared not disobey him, they thoroughly 
respected him. 

Jefferson Davis ran for the legislature and was defeated, 
afterwards was elected, became United States Senator, then a 
member of President Pierce's Cabinet, as Secretary of War. He 
successfully reorganized the armj^, and was the first to suggest 
the trans-continental railway. He then became United States 
Senator under President Buchanan, and made a very long speech 
on State Sovereignty. When he heard his State, Mississippi, had 
seceded he returned to cast in his lot with her. He was made 
Major General of the army, just what he most desired. When 
the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States met at Mont- 
gomery, Ala., he was chosen President without opposition. He 
did not seek or desire this honor, but ever went where duty 
called him. 

Abraham Lincoln also ran for the legislature and was de- 
feated, but afterwards elected. He became a member of Con- 
gress in 1846. Then in 1860 was a candidate for United States 
President on the Eepublican ticket upon an anti-South platform, 
and w^as elected. 

President Davis served one year as President of the Confed- 
eracy, was reelected for the second term of six years and did the 
best he could combating overwhelming odds. AVhen General 
Lee surrendered, he was rapidly making his way to join the last 
division of the arm}' under Kirby Smith in Texas, Avhen he was 
captured at Irwinton, Ga., and taken prisoner to Fortress Monroe 
to await trial. A reward of $100,000 was offered for his capture. 
He was put in chains and treated with great indignities. Is it 
to be wondered at that he felled to the floor the blacksmith who 
came in to rivet the chains? He remained in prison two years. 
The United States authorities did not heed the requests from 
Judge Reagan, of Texas, and General Howell Cobb, of Georgia, 

21 



for an iimuediate trial, which thoy knew would exonerate him, 
or greater leniency in the treatment of him. "When it was dis- 
covered that a trial would condemn the North, by a statement 
^ from Chief Justice Chase to this effect, he was released from 
prison under bond, and Horace Greely said. "I will go on his 
bond that the North may seem to be magnanimous." He re- 
turned to his home at Beauvoir, Miss., a gift from a devoted 
friend and admirer, Mrs. Sarah Dorsey. There he lived until 
his death, which occurred in New Orleans in 1889. He was 
buried in New Orleans, and his body later removed to Richmond, 
Va. 

As Bishop Gailor said, ' ' For twenty years he bore the obloquy 
of treason at the hands of those who were afraid to try him in 
a court of justice. For twenty years he w^as disfranchised and 
denied the rights of citizenship. Yet he never sued for pardon, 
nor ever asked a favor. Lonely and crushed, with a heart broken, 
his life was desolated in its prime. But through it all God gave 
him the courage of the finest manhood, and the purest purpose, 
and he died, as he lived, a Christian, praying for the welfare 
and happiness of his people. Truly he was a man without a 
country, yet he had a country in the hearts of his loyal Southern 
people — and in that country' he ruled an unconquered king." 

Tlie soldiers, who had not agreed with him in many things 
during the war, realized later Avhat he had borne for the South, 
and turned to him then in loving affection. At Macon, the last 
reunion that he was able to attend, some of the soldiers thrust 
into his hands an old tattered and torn battle flag. Taking it 
in both hands, he buried his face in its folds. Strong men sank 
to the ground and leaned on each other's shoulders, weeping like 
children. They felt then, as they feel now, that while the cause 
was not lost, the principles for which they contended being ad- 
L/mitted Constitutional by all right thinking men the world over, 
the life of their chief had been sacrificed for it, and their hearts 
were breaking. 

Abraham Lincoln was afraid to go to Washington, so said 
his friend Lamon, so intense was the feeling against him ; this 
feeling he feared more from his enemies at the North than at 
the South. Lamon, as a detective, accompanied the President, 
who insisted upon going in disguise. His friends felt this was 
a cowardly thing to do, and reproached him for it. He served 
four years, and was reelected over INlcClellau for another term, 
then he was foullv assassinated bv John Wilkes Booth. His 



body was carried to Springfield. 111. President Davis's first 
exclamation upon hearing the news was, "This is the worst 
/ blow that could have befallen the South." 

IV. 

Political Differences. 

There was a very striking likeness in many ways between these 
two men, which has led some to falsely suggest some degree of 
kinship between them. 

Both believed in the constitutional rights of the States. 

Both believed in the right to hold slaves by the Constitution. 

Both were opposed to social and political equality for the 
negro. 

Both believed it would be disastrous to free negroes among 
their former masters. 

Both believed only in educating the negro along industrial 
lines. 

Both believed in the preservation of the Union, if possible. 

Lincoln believed and urged the colonization of the negro. 
Davis believed in the gradual emancipation of the negro. He 
thought the South was the logical home of the black man, and 
that the Southern people better understood him and were most 
ready to make excuses for his shortcomings. He believed that 
in the South the negro could always find sympathy, protection, 
religious instruction, work and a home. 

It has always seemed to me that when birthdays are being 
celebrated in the South the negroes had far better celebrate 
Davis's birthday than Lincoln's. He was their truest friend. 
Besides, it Avas Henderson's Thirteenth Amendment after Lin- 
coln's death that freed them. Lincoln's Emancipation Procla- 
mation did not free all the negroes, and was only made to punish 
the seceding States. The negroes have been kept in such ignor- 
ance along these lines, and their false worship of Lincoln is 
pathetic. 

Did President Davis have any trouble with his Cabinet? He 
certainly did. Alexander Stephens, his Vice-President, fre- 
quently disagreed with him. Some of his Cabinet resigned. 
Some accused him of being imperious and partial. George Vest 
said, ''Had Davis's Cabinet stood by him notwithstanding they 
did not agree with him. the Confederacy would not have failed." 
Some of President Davis's generals felt that he favored pointedly 
"West Point men over others better fitted to command. 



^ 



Did Lincoln have trouble with his Cabinet? He certainly 
did. Ben Wade and Henry W. Davis issued a manifesto against 
him. Sumner, "Wade, Davis, and Chase were his "malicious 
foes." Lincoln was forced to appoint Chase to the office of 
Chief Justice in order to remove him from the Cabinet, for he 
was said to be "the irritating fly in the Lincoln ointment." 
Stanton called Lincoln "a coward and a fool." Seward said 
he had "a cunning that amoimted to genius." Richard Dana 
said, "The lack of respect for the President by his Cabinet can- 
not be concealed." He was called "the baboon at the other end 
of the avenue," and "the idiot of the White House." Had not 
Grant succeeded in gaining a victory at Vicksburg, a movement 
to appoint a Dictator in Lincoln's place would have gone into 
effect. His Cabinet had lost confidence in his policy. 

Was Davis honest and true to his convictions? If by honesty 
is meant taking graft or accepting bribes, he certainly could 
never have been accused of either. If by honesty is meant true 
to any principle which he knew to be right, whether it was expe- 
dient or not, he most undoubtedh' was honest, and true to his 
convictions. 

Was Abraham Lincoln honest and true to his convictions? 
If by being honest you mean taking graft and accepting bribes, 
he certainly was honest, and won the title of "Honest Abe." 
But if by being honest is meant true to the things he believed, 
then Lincoln was not. 

He wrote Alexander Stephens before he was inaugurated chat 
the slaves would be as safe under his administration as they 
were under that of George Washington. Did he change his 
mind when expedient? He told a friend in Kentucky that if 
he would vote for him every fugitive slave should be returned. 
Was it expedient to return any? At Peoria. 111., in 1854 he 
said, "I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — 
not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any 
legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves." Did he? He 
said the slaveholder had a legal and a moral right to his slaves. 
Was he honest when he violated the Constitution by freeing 
some of them? 

He believed at one time it would not be constitutional to coerce 
the States, and then later he believed it would. A friend asked 
why he changed his mind. He replied. "If I allow the South 
to secede, Avhence will come my revenue?" 

24 



In 1848 and in 1860 Lincoln said the Southern States had a 
right to secede ; in 1861 he said the}' would be traitors and rebels 
if they did secede. 

No, Lincoln's convictions of right or wrong changed whenever 
expedient. 

Did President Davis ever violate the Constitution? If he did 
his worst enemies have never been able to discover it. Secession 
was not a violation of the United States Constitution. When a 
President of the United States offered to give him the highest 
office in militia military service, an honor he most desired, he 
refused because he said that was a gift from the State, not the 
government. 

Did Lincoln ever violate the Constitution ? Sumner said when 
Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter, and called for 75,000 men with- 
out the consent of Congress, it was the greatast breach ever made 
in the Constitution and would hereafter give any President the 
liberty to declare war whenever he wished without the consent 
of Congress. In his inaugural address Lincoln said he had no 
intention to interfere with the slaves, for the South had a legal 
right b}^ the Constitution to hold them. Why then did he iasue 
his Emancipation Proclamation to free the South 's slaves? Did 
he not violate the Constitution when he sanctioned the formation 
of West Virginia, a new State taken from Virginia without Vir- 
ginia's consent? Did he not violate the Constitution when he 
suspended the Avrit of habeas corpus, May 10, 1861, in the Merri- 
man case? Yes, Lincoln violated the Constitution whenever he 
desired. 

Was Jefferson Davis humane? He certainly was. When the 
soldiers were returning victorious from the first Battle of Ma- 
nassas, and President Davis went out to meet them, he said that 
he commended their humane treatment of those 10,000 prisoners 
of Avar as much as he commended their valor, great as it was. 
AVhen he was urged to retaliate for alleged cruelties to our pris- 
oners at the North, his reply was, "The inhumanity of the enemy 
to our prisoners can be no justification for a disregard by us 
of the rules of civilized war and Christianity." The Richmond 
Examiner said that this humane policy of the President would 
be the ruin of the Confederacy. His heart went out in agony 
over the suffering of the Andersonville prisoners, and his inabil- 
ity to help them because of the refusal to exchange prisonei-s, 
and to send medicines. 

25 



Was Abraham Lincoln hnmane? When Alexander Stephens, 
a personal friend, went on to Washington to plead for a renewal 
of the cartel to exchange prisoners, owing to a congested condi- 
tion at Andersonvillo beyond the power of the Confederate gov- 
ernment to relieve, he imt this request on the score of humanity 
and friendship, not as a political measure; the request was re- 
fused. When President Davis. Colonel Oukl and General Howell 
Cobb pleaded for an exchange of prisonei-s at ^^jadersonville on 
the plea of mercy, as the stockade was overcrowded and the water 
conditions bad, was the request granted? When six of the pris- 
oners were paroled in order to go to Washington to plead for 
exchange, wa.s their request even given a fair hearing ? When 
Colonel Ould begged that medicines, which had been made con- 
traband of war, should be sent to their own surgeons to use only 
for their own men, was not that request denied? When Colonel 
Ould asked that a vessel be sent to take the sick and wounded 
home, because of the lack of room, lack of cooking vessels to 
prepare the food and lack of medicines to give proper attention, 
it was refused, unless 1500 men Avere sent to them. Word was 
returned that the vessel would be filled with well men to com- 
plete that number, and although this answer went in August 
it was December before the vessel was sent, and that after many, 
many had died. When General Cobb sent the prisoners to 
Florida the Federal oflfieers refused to receive them, but they were 
left there anyway. Was Sheridan's treatment of the woman 
and children in the Valley of the Shenandoah, or Sherman's 
treatment of them in Atlanta, or in his jNIarch through Georgia, 
or at the burning of Columbia, or Butler's treatment of the 
women in New Orleans humane? Yet Lincoln as Commander- 
in-chief of the army, allowed it and never once reproved it. No, 
Lincoln was not humane. Nevertheless, this quality has been 
given to him in full measure since his martyrdom. 

Did Lincoln intend to free the slaves when war was declared? 
Certainly he did not. In his speech at Peoria, 111., he said: 

"Free them and keep them here as underlings? Tbat would 
not better their condition. 

"Free them and make them socially and politically our equals? 
My own felings will not admit this, and I know the mass of 
whites North and South will not agree to this. We cannot make 
them our equals. 

"Free them and send them to Liberia would be my fii-st im- 

26 



pulse, but I know if thej- were landed there today they would 
perish in ten days. 

''If all earthly power were given to me I do not know what 
to do with slavery as it exists in the South today. 

"A system of gradual emancipation seems best, and we must 
not too quickly judge our brethren of the South for a seeming 
tardiness in this matter. 

Does this seem that he had the Emancipation Proclamation 
or anything like it in his mind at that time? 

Was Lincoln magnanimous? Yes, Lincoln was magnanimous, 
for there is no doubt that Grant's nmgnanimity to Lee was Lin- 
coln's thought, not Grant's. One who was present when Grant 
went to consult Lincoln about this testifies to this fact. 

Was Lincoln highly extolled by his friends Herndon and 
Lamon before his martyrdom? No, they saw many faidts in 
their friend Lincoln which were quickly expimged from later 
editions of their books. The first copies of these books were 
rapidly destroyed. Rare copies of them are, however, still to 
be found. 

What were Lincoln's views about colonization? 

From the time of his election as President he was striving to 
find some means of colonizing the negroes. An experiment had 
been made of sending them to Liberia, but it was a failure, and 
he wished to try another colony, hoping that would be successful. 
He sent one colony to Cow Island under Koch as overseer, but 
he proved very cruel to the negroes and they begged to return. 
He then asked for an appropriation of money from Congress 
to purchase land in Central America, but Central America re- 
fused to sell and said, "Do not send the negroes here." The 
North said, ' ' Do not send the negroes here. ' ' It was then agreed 
that a Black Territory should be set apart for the segregation 
of the negroes in Texas, Missisippi and South Carolina — but 
Lincoln was unhappy, and in despair he asked Ben Butler's ad- 
vice, saying, "If we turn 200,000 armed negroes in the South 
among their former owners, from whom we have taken their 
arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. 
The negroes must be gotten rid of." Ben Butler said, "Why 
not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was de- 
lighted at the suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward 
at once. Only a few days later John Wilkes Booth assassinated 
Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward. What 
would have been the result had Lincoln lived cannot be esti- 

27 



mated. The poor negroes would possibly have been sent to that 
place of yellow fever and malarial dangers to perish from the 
face of the earth, for we had no Gorgas of Alabama to stndy 
our sanitary laws for them at that time. 

By the way, another wrong of history should be corrected 
just here. John AVilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln because 
of no love that he had in liis heart for the South, but because 
Lincoln and Seward had failed to pardon a friend of his, and 
failing in this promise that friend was hanged. Vengeance was 
vowed and vengeance was taken. There was not a true man of 
the South who would have tolerated such a deed as Lincoln's 
assassination. 

What was Lincoln's Reconstruction Policy? 

Lincoln's idea was to restore all the seceding States to their 
rights, extracting a promise that they would not secede again, 
and that they would free their slaves, because he had promised 
that in his Proclamation, then punish President Davis and the 
leaders. He would never have stood for Thad Stevens's policy, 
and Thad Stevens and his crowd knew it and rejoiced at Lincoln's 
death. 

Now when Southern young men say "The South as well as 
the North is ready to admit that Lincoln is the greatest of all 
Americans," it is full time to call a halt. These 3'oung people 
have been taught to canonize Lincoln, and they must now be 
taught that Lincoln can never measure up to many of our great 
men of the South, especially to our Robert E. Lee, a man who 
in everj-^ department of life )neasured up to the highest stand- 
ard. Whether as son, husband, father, soldier, teacher, master, 
citizen, friend, sdiolar, or Christian gentleman, he presented 
the most rounded character found in all human history. Lord 
Wolseley said of him: ''He was a being apart and superior t« 
all others in every way ; a man with whom none I ever knew, 
and verA' few of whom I ever read are worthy to be compared ; 
u man who was east in a grander mould and made of finer metal 
than all other men.'' 

Nor am I willing to place Lincoln ahead of our Jefferson Davis. 
Our Davis never stood for coarse jokes, never violated the Con- 
.stitution, never stood for retaliation — Lincoln stood for all these. 
Nor was he even as great as many of the great men of the North. 
He cannot be compared to our Woodrow Wilson. I\Iany times 
Lincoln had an opportunity to make peace and he made war. 
Twice our Woodrow Wilson had an opportunity to plead for 

28 



peace and he did it. Many times Lincoln had an opportunity 
to show loving kindness to humanity and many times he failed. 
Never has there been an opportunity for our President to show 
loving kindness to those in distress that he has failed. 

V. 

Another wrong that must be righted is that Barbara Frietchee 
MYTH. Our children are reciting that poem by Whittier and 
are being taught that our great and good Stonewall Jackson 
was not only discourteous, but actually revengeful and cruel. 
We cannot allow this to longer remain unrighted. 

I have in my possession a eopj' of a letter from John G. "Whit- 
tier written in 1892 in Avhich he acknowledges that he was mis- 
taken in the name of the place Avhere the incident took place 
and the person mentioned in the poem who waved the flag. He 
says that a United States soldier returning from the war told 
him the incident, and said that it happened in Maryland when 
Jackson 's troops passed through. He supposed that it took place 
in Frederick, because Jackson passed through that city, so wrote 
to the postmaster there to inquire the name of the person con- 
nected with the flag waving. The postmaster replied that he had 
never heard of the incident, but that it sounded very much like 
Barbara Frietchie, for she was a very patriotic old woman who 
had lived there at that time. The name struck Whittier as suit- 
able for a poem, so upon that authority only he wrote it. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from a nephew of 
Barbara Frietchie, written in 1874, saying that at the time 
Stonewall Jackson passed through Frederick, Md., he was at- 
tending to his aunt's business affairs, and he knows pasitively 
that she was not able to leave her bed, much less to mount a case- 
ment to wave a flag. 

I have in my possession a copy of a letter from Dr. Zacharias, 
her pastor, saying that the day before Stonewall Jackson passed 
through Frederick, he was administering, as to a dying woman, 
the last communion. He said he knew positively that Barbara 
Frietchie was not able to go to a Avindow to wave a flag, even 
had Stonewall Jackson's men passed her home, which they did 
not. 

I have in my possession a chart giving Jackson 's line of march 
in Frederick and the location of Barbara Frietchie 's home, which 
was quite off the line. And yet the women of Frederick, know- 

29 



ing these facts, have erected a nionument in the streets of that 
city and lately unveiled it to this falsehood in history. 

The U. D. C. Daughters of Frederick protested. The Veterans 
of the U. C. V. in Frederick protested. The Daughters and Vet- 
erans of ^Maryland protested, and the Baltimore Sun protested, 
but nothing could stop it. The testimony of an old woman over 
75 years old, whose memory is known to be failing, has been 
taken, rather than more reliable testimony. She is a niece of 
Barbara Frietchie, and has been fed upon this story so long that 
she really believes it, when her own brother's testimony disproves 
it. There is nothing to do but to let it be branded in history 
as a monument to an untruth. The mayor of Frederick was 
asked why he allowed it to l)e erected, and he said. ''Because it 
will bring many visitors to our city." Yes, it is a monument 
luiique in history, but does it honor, as a monument should, the 
memory of any one? I know Whittier would have resented it, 
for while we didn't agree with him on the slavery question, he 
was a man of deep religious convictions and a man who abhorred 
a sham. If Barbara Frietchie was so patriotic she would not 
desire an honor that falsified facts. 

VI. 

Another wrong to be righted and one as much misunderstood 
by some of our Southern men and women as by those of other 
sections. I refer to the misrepresentations regarding Anderson- 
viLLE Prison, and the unfair trial given to i\Iajor Wirz, and the 
attempt to implicate President Davis in the atrocities, so-called, 
at Andersonville. 

It will be needless to rehearse all the story, especially here in 
Savannah, for it Avas a Savannah woman, Mrs. L. G. Young, 
who Avrote the resolutions to introduce in the Georgia Conven- 
tion U. D. C. when it met in ]Macon. 1905, to erect a monument 
to exonerate the name of Wirz and to defend the President of 
the Confederacy. It was ]\Iiss Benning, of Columbus, Ga.. who 
seconded it. It was a Savannah woman. IMrs. A. B. Hull, who 
was President of the Georgia Division when the monument was 
being erected, although it was unveiled under Miss Alice Bax- 
ter's administration. We can bear testimonj' to endless and vile 
vituperations hurled at us for daring to defend IMajor Wirz and 
the Andersonville atrocities. But we knew that we were right 
and the truth of history would sustain us; and we knew the 
attacks came from ignorance of the facts in the case, .so we tried 
to forgive and forget all that was said. We were sorry to stir 
up strife and bitterness, but right is might and must prevail. 

30 



When Senator Blaine in the United States Senate Chamber 
January 10, 1876, cast reproach npon President Davis for the 
horrors at Andersonville, it was by good Providence that a mem- 
ber of that Senate was Benjamin H. Hill, the confidential adviser 
of President Davis, and he knew every step that had been taken 
in the whole atfair, and why it was taken. Mr. Hill answered 
Mr. Blaine. 

That was a most remarkable speech. It refuted every accusa- 
tion brought against Wirz or Davis, and silenced their defamers 
for a time at least. 

I wish I could give Senator Hill's speech in full, but I have 
not the time or memory to give it, and you have not the time 
to listen to it. Turning to Mr. Blaine, he said: "Mr. Blaine, 
you said jMr. Davis was the author knowingly, deliberately, guilt- 
ily, and wilfully of the gigantic crime and murder at Anderson- 
ville. By what authority do j^ou make this statement? One 
hundred and sixty witnesses were introduced during the three 
months' trial of Captain Wirz. and not one mentioned the name 
of President Davis in connection with a single atrocity. It is 
true that two houj*s before Captain Wirz's execution, parties 
came to Wirz's confessor saying if Wirz would implicate Presi- 
dent Davis his sentence would be commuted. What was Wirz's 
reply? 'President Davis had no connection with me as to what 
happened at Andersonville. Besides, I would not becoriie a traitor 
even to save my life.' 

"You say, Mr. Blaine, that the food was insufficient and the 
prisoners were starved to death. The act of the Confederate Con- 
gress reads thus: 'The rations furnished prisoners of war shall 
be the same in quantity and quality as those furnished to enlisted 
juen in the army of the Confederacy.' That was the law that 
Mr. Davis approved. 

"You say, Mr. Blaine, that Mr. Davis sent General Winder to 
locate a den of horrors. The official order reads thus: 'The 
location for the stockade shall be in a healthy locality, with 
plenty of pure water, with a running stream, and if possible 
with shade trees and near to grist and saw mills.' This doesn't 
soimd like a den of horrors, does it?" 

He then rehearsed the efforts of Vice-President Alexander 
Stephens, Colonel Robert Ould, General Howell Cobb. Captain 
Wirz, and others, who, time and time again interceded for the 
exchange of prisoners on any terms and finallj' on no terms at 
all. if only they would receive them beyond the borders of the 

31 



State, and, how ever}- offer was rejected. He showed how med- 
icine, made contraband of war, was denied to be used for their 
own men. He showed how no act of the Confederate Governmcnf, 
was responsible for any horrors that existed at Anderson vi lie, 
but that all blame must rest wholly with the war policy of tho 
Federal Government. When General Grant was urged to ex- 
change, his answer was, "If we commence a system of exchange 
we will have to fight until the whole South is exterminated. If 
we hold those caught they are as dead men." 

VII. 

Mr. Hill continued: "You say, ^Ic. Blaine, tiinl no prisoners 
in Northern prisons were ever maltreattd. I do not earo to unfold 
the chapters on the other side. I coald prod-jce thousands of 
witnessas from my own State of Georgia aloue, to refute this 
statement." 

Yes, Mr. Hill could ha^e told of the horroi's cf Elmira, Rock 
Island, Fort Delaware, Camp Chase, acd others. And he could 
have told how the health cf Alexander Stephens, our Vice-Pres- 
ident, was injured by confinement in Fort Warren, the dampness 
bringing on an attack of rheumatism from Avhich he never recov- 
ered, and which left him a cripple for life. He could have told 
them how our Sidney Lanier was never a well man .ifter that 
confinement in a Northern prison. He could have told of thase 
GOO prisoners at Fort Delaware who were placed under the fire 
of their own men, and guarded by negrc soldiei^, and he ctnild 
have told of horrors without end that were heaped upon our 
prisoners in a spirit of retaliation simply. 

3Ir. Hill continued, * ' You say, Mr. Blaine, that President Davis 
stan'ed and tortured 23,500 prisoner in Southern prisons. 
Who, Mr. Blaine, starved 26,00(; prisoners >n Northern prisons? 
Mr. Stanton, your Secretary of War, gives these statistics, and I 
feel sure you will believe him, will you not/ He says 329c of 
our men died in your pr.sons and only 9% of your men died 
in ours. There were far more Northern men in our prisons than 
Southern men in your prisons. Why was this per cent of death 
greater at the North ? ' ' 

Then turning to Mr. Blaine, Senator Hill said, "No, Mr. 
Blaine, I tell you this reckless misrepresentations of the South 
must stop right here. I put you on notice that hereafter when 
you make an assertion against the South you must be prepared 
to substantiate full proof thereof.'' 

President Davis sent General Lee under a flag of truce to urge, 

32 



m the name of humanity, that General Grant agree to an ex- 
change of prisoners. The interview was not granted. 

This is General Lee's testimony as expressed in a letter to a 
Philadelphia friend, who \vished his view of the Andersonville 
affair : 

"I offered General Grant to send into his lines all of the pris- 
oners within ray Department (Virginia and North Carolina), 
provided he would return man for man. When I notified the 
Confederate authorities of my proposition, I was told, if accepted 
they would gladly place at my disposal every man in our South- 
ern prisons. I also made this offer to the Committee of the 
United States Sanitarj^ Comiiiission — but my propositions were 
not accepted. — R. E. Lee." 

I wish I had time to tell you my conversation with Dr. Kerr, 
of Corsicana, Texas. He was one of our surgeons at Anderson- 
ville, and gave me some such valuable history concerning the 
conditions there. He says to his certain knowledge thirteen of 
the acts of cruelty brought against Captain Wirz, and accepted 
as truth, although absolute proofs were given to the contrary, 
took place when Captain "Wirz was sick in bed, and some one else 
in charge of the prisoners. Yes, Wirz was a hero and a martyr. 

Dr. Kerr says that Wirz was called hard-hearted and cruel, 
but he has seen the tears streaming down his face when in the 
hospitals watching the sufferings of those men. Not a man ever 
died that he did not see that his grave was distinctly marked so 
that his mother could come and claim that body. Did any one 
at Northern prisons ever do that for our Southern boys ' mothers ? 

If the soldiers hated W^irz, as was said in the trial, why did 
they not kill him, for they had ample opportunity, as he never 
went armed. He did not even carry a pocket knife. He once 
laughingly said to Dr. Kerr that he had an old rusty pistol, but 
it would not shoot. 

I have in my library a copy of a set of resolutions which those 
six paroled prisoners drew up when they returned from Wash- 
ington, exonerating the Confederate authorities of all blame 
connected with the horrors of Andersonville prison life, and 
testifying to the fact that the insults received at Stanton 's hands 
were far harder to bear than anything they ever had suffered 
at Andersonville. 

I have in my library a book written by one of the prisoners 
exonerating Captain Wirz and the Confederate authorities. I 
have in my scrap book a copy of a letter from some of the pris- 
onei-s sent with a watch which they presented to Captain Wirz 



as a token of their appreciation of his kind treatment of them. 
Mrs. Perrin, his daughter, has many testimonials of this kind. 

There Ava.s never any tronble aljout lack of provisions at An- 
dersonville. as has been so often stated. There Avas an abundant 
supply of the i-ations that the soldiers and i)risoners needed, but 
the trouble eame because of the over-crowded condition of the 
stockade. It was made for 10,000 and in four months 29.000 
were sent. There were 8,000 sick in the hospitals at one time and 
no medicines. There Avere not enough vessels in which the food 
could be properly prepared and served, and the Confederate 
authorities were powerless, for they did not have vessels with 
which to supply this need, nor money with which to buy them. 

There were many bad men among the prisoners called ' ' bounty 
jumpers," and they were killed by their own men, yet Captain 
AVirz Avas accused of their murder. Dr. Kerr said when Captain 
AVirz paroled those six prisoners to send them North to plead 
for exchange, he turned to him and said, "I Avish I could parole 
the last one of them." At the surrender he AA'cut to Macon, 
relying on the honor of General Wilson's parole. Imagine his 
surprise Avhen he Avas arrested. He Avas taken to trial, condemned 
upon suborned testimony and hanged November 6, 1865. That 
Avas the foulest blot in American history, and ]Mrs. Surratt's 
death for complicity a\ ith John Wilkes Booth may be placed 
beside it. 

If any one questions the truth of these facts, they can be found 
verified in the volumes called the "War of the Rebellion," in 
the Congressional Library in AVashington. D. C, put there by 
the United States authorities. 

I have also a copy of a letter from Herman A. Braum. of 
]\IilAvaukee. AVis.. Avho was a i)i-isoii(u- at Andersonville. After 
paying a tribute to Captain Wirz and exonerating the Confed- 
erate authorities he says. "I believe that there is nothing so well 
calculated to .strengthen tlie faith in popular government as tlie 
example given by the Confederacy during the Avar, its justice, 
humanity, and poAver. On this rests the historic fame of Jeffer- 
son Davis," 

I Avish I had the time to take up .some other Avrongs and try 
to right them. I had intended to say something of the Hampton 
Roads Conference, the Sunnier-lirooks caning, and the false 
history about the Alonitor and Alerrimac. But I have detained 
you too long already, and I must save these for another time. 

As I .said before, Avhatever Avrongs are righted, they must be 
righted in the proper sjiirit. 



I know perfectly well what the young people of today will 
say : ' ' We are tired of hearing of these old issues, don 't resur- 
rect them." We have listened to this too long from the young 
people, and we have allowed them thereby to grow up in ignor- 
ance of the truth regarding our history. We must not listen to 
them any longer. Justice to the living, memory of the dead, a 
desire that truth may prevail over error and falsehood makes 
me urgent to right these wrongs of history now. 

Our friends from the North do not object to the truth of his- 
tory provided we are fair and just. We may expect them to 
disagree with us at times, but that is perfectly natural for they 
have never heard of many of the things we claim. They, too, 
have been often wronged in our Southern history and we must 
be ready to help them to right their wrongs also. Whatever is 
done, let it be done in the spirit of truth and peace and love 
and good will. 

It is all right, as President Wilson said, to plan a Lincoln 
Highway, and it is all right to plan a Jefferson Davis Highway. 
We should honor the distinguished men of our land. Enough 
is not done along this line. Foreign countries put us to shame. 
But the Lincoln Highway will not obliterate the Mason and 
Dixon line, as the President suggests, for that is not a line of 
locality or mere boundary, but it is a line of heredity. Just 
as long as there is pure Puritan blood in the veins of some and 
pure Cavalier blood in the veins of others, there will be a differ- 
ence in the thoughts and ways of the people. We cannot be alike if 
we would. This need not cause a difference that would lead to 
misunderstandings, however. God grant that never again in 
the history of our country shall jealousies, bickerings, selfish con- 
tentions and political injustice drive us apart. Today we stand, 
and desire to stand, a reunited people, all sections prosperous, 
happy, at peace and united. Yes, united in energies, in common 
interests, in resources, in courage and in patriotism, dependent 
the one upon the other. 

The eyes of the world are on us. There is no doubt that our 
country is the greatest, the noblest, the mightiest of all the coun- 
tries of the globe, and we must rejoice at it and keep it so. We 
should be thankful that we are under a leader who stands for 
peace and whom the whole world respects, a leader who has come 
to us "for such a time as this"; a leader who knows no section, 
but w^ho, knowing the right, dares to maintain it — a leader w^ho 
has the love of the world in his heart, and would if he could 
have war to cease and peace and love and harmony prevail 
throughout the entire world. 

35 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 




014 441 019 1 



\ 



